"Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:48:29 +0200 "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > Thanks for all the tests! Judging from the syntax alone I would > > prefer > > hg :-) > I wonder what you're seeing. At least in those examples the syntax is > almost > the same save for the hashes, instead of which we'd use the revision > tags > anyway. I liked the -r -500 syntax, and I also like the non-pager default behaviour of diff (as that makes navigating the diff with the mouse almost impossible), but like it as an option for inferior terminals like Gnome's. Apart from that, what you don't see is that git doesn't allow you to abbreviate commands, you always have to type them out :-) > Apropos revision tags: AFAIK the revision numbers hg assigns are > repository > specific which I find rather unhelpful. Does hg support something > like git's > lightweight tags that could be created automatically on the server? That's indeed a good point! > > And finally, does hg support updating the local repository without > > (temporarily) throw away my local changes? > > As far as I understand, that takes 3-4 commands with git which I > > find > > very annoying (git stash, git rebase, git stash apply[, git stash > > clear]) -- or is that only relevant when working with SVN as a > > source > > repository? > You might want to rethink your workflow. Before even starting to work > on > something a local branch should be created. And before playing with > remote repositories local changes should be committed anyway. > Uncommitted local changes are so svn. :-) Nah, git pull is the way to go - I like to update to the latest revision before committing my local changes, or else I might need to commit the additional merge diffs separately. Apparently, only if you work with git-svn updating to the last revision gets annoying. Bye, Axel.